At least for your typical Republican today, what they think of as "freedom" isn’t what you and I define as "free". It’s like that scene in Easy Rider when Jack Nicholson’s character, talking about people in the Deep South, says something like, "People out here love to talk about fighting for freedom, but really they’re scared of what real freedom looks like". To prove his point by the end of the movie Nicholson’s character, and the long-haired bikers played by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper have all been murdered by deranged rednecks.
Today your typical Republican is for torture, imprisoning people indefinitely without charging them, listening in on anyone’s phone call without a warrant, yet they paradoxically reserve the right to preemptively bomb the shit out of anyone in order to protect the "freedoms" they’ve already said they could do without.
More than anything, what really blows my mind is the logic these Republicans use to defend torture, the repeal of habeas corpus, the fourth amendment to the Constitution, and the Constitution in general.
On torture, Republicans always say, "well al Qaeda beheads their prisoners" or "waterboarding, slapping, and sleep deprivation are not torture". Okay, first of all, the Japanese beheaded American POWs in WWII and we didn’t feel the need to torture their prisoners, and if in a war with Iran they did these things to our troops, would we just say, "it’s alright because it’s not torture"? No, I have a feeling the Republicans would be calling for an Iranian nuclear holocaust.
On granting detainees at Gitmo due process, Republicans say, "these terrorists don’t deserve our justice system". Okay, if Republicans are going to assume these detainees are terrorists without ever having a proceeding to determine whether that’s true or not, why have a justice system at all? By their rationale it’s a waste of time giving average criminals due process because we already know they’re criminals, right? And criminals don’t deserve a justice system.
Lastly, on the Constitution, the Republican argument is that the president can disregard any law he wants if it interferes with his duty as Commander in Chief. But on its face this is a stupid argument, since technically this would mean that the president could disregard freedom of speech and expression if he regards these things as interfering with his duties as Commander in Chief. If you have Republican friends or family who don’t get this, tell them it means the president can even take away their guns if he thinks they interfere with his job as Commander in Chief. Maybe that will register with them.
What it all comes down to in the end is that Republicans don’t really give a flying fuck about freedom or the Constitution. They’re just abstract concepts to be flung aside like a used condom whenever they become too inconvenient. But even worse, they only want the president to have these absolute powers if he’s a Republican. Believe me, if Hillary becomes president, in a heartbeat these same Republicans will suddenly become libertarians and defenders of the Constitution again.
What Republicans care about is "freedom" for their side and fuck everyone else. Just look at their main causes. They don’t want gays to be free to marry, don’t want gays to be free to join the military or adopt kids, don’t want women to be free to choose whether they should have an abortion, don’t want people to be free to medicate themselves through marijuana, don’t want journalists to be free to report on the illegal activities of its government, don't want Muslims to be free to serve in Congress, don't want Bruce Springsteen and the Dixie Chicks to be free to express songs of opposition to the war, don't want the troops to be free to read and hear dissenting views, only Rush Limbaugh, no Air America.
Free? My ass.